ok but how about extra fuel to use the farming technology, peak oil (soon), minerals and fresh water, generated human waste and how much land is required to neutralise it fast enough, factories to clothe and mainain everything else that humans need and do. Also look up the exponential function
scientist tell us this because they spend years learning how it all works, it's much more complex issue than "how many people can i physically fit into a space and feed".
@markgobbin You keep moving the bar. Once one of your concerns are debunked you make up another and on and on. Still to debunk you latest concern there are massive amounts natural gas that can be used. Furthermore if you trust your environmental allies solar power and wind power will become an endless source of energy after all the when the sun is used up our population numbers will be the least of our concerns.
So, population reduction or stabilisation may not be, as of now, an absolute necessity, but population continued growth does not appear to be desirable, be it for the sake of the humans of tomorrow, or for the human race as a whole.
Then I ask the question of the value of life in a world where we would live on the extreme limits of the Earth's carrying capacity, AND on the extreme limits of what we need to survive. That would be an extremely fragile, and generaly unpleasant and uncomfortable situation.
As for eventual "better farming practices", we probably reached a peak. Chemical fertilizers won't always be available, and they already cause significant environmental damage.
@bouligab Yes the final question could be worded as "what kind of world do you want to live in". If you are a lover of individual freedom then you have to ask "do I have a right to force my world vision on others". If you love state planned and controlled populations the question is "How do we make people do what we want to create our world vision". If you are a nature focused person the question becomes "how can we limit human influence on Nature".
As for the housing and farming, I would also point out a massive resource that goes largely unused, The Oceans. Floating cities are very possible as are floating farm or highly controlled and efficient in water fisheries. There has even been a lot of study in the field of underwater cities. To take it one step further you have space and Mars or colonies on other planets and terraforming, although admittedly that one is likely a ways off.
As for what is or isn't desirable, that is subjective.
@Hunterkirk "that is subjective", but there is no way around it.
Btw, we already over-exploit oceans. Fisheries around the world see their catch lower.
Anyway, even with technical solutions to the problem of supporting extra-population, our responsibility is to make these solutions applicable - i.e. addressing all these economic-politic problems - before we find ourselves overcrowded. And in fact, we already are, considering our inability to feed 1 human being out of 6.
You misunderstand we "hunt" the oceans we do not "farm" them, I am referring to farming.
"we already are, considering our inability to feed 1 human being out of 6."
I know certain groups are believing this is a problem and their "solutions" a largely fundamentally flawed. There is plenty of food out their (barring us turning our food stocks in to fuel). The problem as I outlined is with corrupt governments, war , and infrastructure.
For some they use this as a political tool to other ends.
And that human beings can eat only rice or other cereals, and no fruits, meat, vegetables, etc. because they don't yield as much calories as cereals, per acre. Besides, this will result in an incomplete regime: we need fats, vitamins, nutrients, etc., not just "pure calories".
Ah, and if we get to 22 billion people, all the trees on earth are likely to be cut down. All fish is likely to be catched. All things you can think of are likely to be exhausted, in fact. This is a complex problem. Think
@bouligab The calories per acre number is based on the current mixture of food stocks. So that includes meat and plants. But you are right the assumption is that ALL the arable land is used for food production. That would mean forests and jungles and what not would be replaced with farms.
What is not taken in account in my math is how much more food would be produced with better farming practices. That is a unknown by in history it has increase dramatically.
As for your first argument, indeed, it is not a question of "place". We can indeed build towers, dig holes (whatever), and live in them.
But for your second argument, where you claim it is possible to feed 22 billion people, well, yes, it technically and hypothetically possible. But even if we succeed in overthrowing all the corruption, inequities, and so on, your model takes for granted that the only use for arable land is to produce food.
There is overpopulation. Of wrong people. Lazy, self-absorbed, unwilling to function with other humans harmoniously. Get rid of illegal immigrants - lots of land and traffic will be relieved. Also, I never head this overpopulation ideology ever delivered to a mexican or to a black person; somehow always to a white person. Is it truly overpopulation of primarily White people? [scratching head]. I'd argue, there is under-population of *good* people. But personally I am working on improving this :)
@spanky061970 I would love to give you the web link to the live journal entry in which I did the math and showed the math and sources but Youtube seems to have a problem with web links in the comment areas.
Another thing that you did not consider is growth upward. In other words high rise apartment buildings make it easier to compress more people on less acreage. I heard that the entire population of the world could fit in Broward county Florida if they all lived in 80 story apartment buldings each covering 10 acres of land.
Before this video is fully processed, Just from the title I would argue that the problem with zero population growth is the fact that a culture can not survive with zero population growth,
ok but how about extra fuel to use the farming technology, peak oil (soon), minerals and fresh water, generated human waste and how much land is required to neutralise it fast enough, factories to clothe and mainain everything else that humans need and do. Also look up the exponential function
scientist tell us this because they spend years learning how it all works, it's much more complex issue than "how many people can i physically fit into a space and feed".
markgobbin 9 months ago
@markgobbin You keep moving the bar. Once one of your concerns are debunked you make up another and on and on. Still to debunk you latest concern there are massive amounts natural gas that can be used. Furthermore if you trust your environmental allies solar power and wind power will become an endless source of energy after all the when the sun is used up our population numbers will be the least of our concerns.
Hunterkirk 9 months ago
So, population reduction or stabilisation may not be, as of now, an absolute necessity, but population continued growth does not appear to be desirable, be it for the sake of the humans of tomorrow, or for the human race as a whole.
bouligab 1 year ago
Then I ask the question of the value of life in a world where we would live on the extreme limits of the Earth's carrying capacity, AND on the extreme limits of what we need to survive. That would be an extremely fragile, and generaly unpleasant and uncomfortable situation.
As for eventual "better farming practices", we probably reached a peak. Chemical fertilizers won't always be available, and they already cause significant environmental damage.
bouligab 1 year ago
@bouligab Yes the final question could be worded as "what kind of world do you want to live in". If you are a lover of individual freedom then you have to ask "do I have a right to force my world vision on others". If you love state planned and controlled populations the question is "How do we make people do what we want to create our world vision". If you are a nature focused person the question becomes "how can we limit human influence on Nature".
I
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
As for the housing and farming, I would also point out a massive resource that goes largely unused, The Oceans. Floating cities are very possible as are floating farm or highly controlled and efficient in water fisheries. There has even been a lot of study in the field of underwater cities. To take it one step further you have space and Mars or colonies on other planets and terraforming, although admittedly that one is likely a ways off.
As for what is or isn't desirable, that is subjective.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk "that is subjective", but there is no way around it.
Btw, we already over-exploit oceans. Fisheries around the world see their catch lower.
Anyway, even with technical solutions to the problem of supporting extra-population, our responsibility is to make these solutions applicable - i.e. addressing all these economic-politic problems - before we find ourselves overcrowded. And in fact, we already are, considering our inability to feed 1 human being out of 6.
bouligab 1 year ago
You misunderstand we "hunt" the oceans we do not "farm" them, I am referring to farming.
"we already are, considering our inability to feed 1 human being out of 6."
I know certain groups are believing this is a problem and their "solutions" a largely fundamentally flawed. There is plenty of food out their (barring us turning our food stocks in to fuel). The problem as I outlined is with corrupt governments, war , and infrastructure.
For some they use this as a political tool to other ends.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
And that human beings can eat only rice or other cereals, and no fruits, meat, vegetables, etc. because they don't yield as much calories as cereals, per acre. Besides, this will result in an incomplete regime: we need fats, vitamins, nutrients, etc., not just "pure calories".
Ah, and if we get to 22 billion people, all the trees on earth are likely to be cut down. All fish is likely to be catched. All things you can think of are likely to be exhausted, in fact. This is a complex problem. Think
bouligab 1 year ago
@bouligab The calories per acre number is based on the current mixture of food stocks. So that includes meat and plants. But you are right the assumption is that ALL the arable land is used for food production. That would mean forests and jungles and what not would be replaced with farms.
What is not taken in account in my math is how much more food would be produced with better farming practices. That is a unknown by in history it has increase dramatically.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
As for your first argument, indeed, it is not a question of "place". We can indeed build towers, dig holes (whatever), and live in them.
But for your second argument, where you claim it is possible to feed 22 billion people, well, yes, it technically and hypothetically possible. But even if we succeed in overthrowing all the corruption, inequities, and so on, your model takes for granted that the only use for arable land is to produce food.
bouligab 1 year ago
There is overpopulation. Of wrong people. Lazy, self-absorbed, unwilling to function with other humans harmoniously. Get rid of illegal immigrants - lots of land and traffic will be relieved. Also, I never head this overpopulation ideology ever delivered to a mexican or to a black person; somehow always to a white person. Is it truly overpopulation of primarily White people? [scratching head]. I'd argue, there is under-population of *good* people. But personally I am working on improving this :)
vbminsk 1 year ago
@vbminsk WTF?????????? you do know that "white" people are like 70% of the population in the country right?
mopheadthe3rd 1 year ago
Where did you get all those cool statistics. I would not know where to find a number like 11,000 calories per acre per day.
spanky061970 2 years ago
@spanky061970 I would love to give you the web link to the live journal entry in which I did the math and showed the math and sources but Youtube seems to have a problem with web links in the comment areas.
Hunterkirk 2 years ago
Another thing that you did not consider is growth upward. In other words high rise apartment buildings make it easier to compress more people on less acreage. I heard that the entire population of the world could fit in Broward county Florida if they all lived in 80 story apartment buldings each covering 10 acres of land.
spanky061970 2 years ago
Before this video is fully processed, Just from the title I would argue that the problem with zero population growth is the fact that a culture can not survive with zero population growth,
spanky061970 2 years ago